Judgment Reserved In Mbalula-Dlamini Zuma Defamation Battle Over ANC Vote-Buying Claims

The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has reserved judgment in the defamation battle between ANC Secretary-General Fikile Mbalula and ANC National Executive Committee member Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma over allegations that money was used to influence votes at the party's 2022 elective conference.

The dispute centres on allegations Dlamini Zuma made during an August interview on Mbuyiseni Ndlozi's African Renaissance podcast.

Dlamini Zuma alleged that Mbalula distributed money to delegates to help secure his election as ANC secretary-general and President Cyril Ramaphosa's re-election as party president.

Mbalula denies the allegations and approached the court seeking, among other relief, a retraction and apology from Dlamini Zuma.

Dlamini Zuma has refused to withdraw the allegations and maintains that her claims are true.

The allegations against Mbalula have not been established as fact by a court.

ANC Delegate's Affidavit Takes Centre Stage

A central issue during Tuesday's proceedings was an affidavit from ANC delegate Mandla Themba Sibiya, who claims he witnessed Mbalula distributing money to delegates during the 2022 conference and personally benefited from the alleged payments.

Dlamini Zuma's legal team presented Sibiya's account as direct evidence supporting her allegations and argued that it demonstrated the existence of a genuine dispute of fact that could not properly be resolved solely through written affidavits.

Mbalula's legal team attacked the reliability and evidentiary value of Sibiya's statement.

Advocate Smanga Setheni, representing Mbalula, argued that broad allegations could not automatically provide a defence against a defamation claim.

“To make an allegation or sweeping statements about somebody does not afford you protection,” Setheni told the court.

He highlighted that Sibiya's affidavit was deposed on 4 September, about a month after Dlamini Zuma's podcast interview.

Setheni also questioned why Sibiya had not previously reported the alleged payments to police or ANC structures.

“It is also not clear why, to date, the very same Mr Sibiya has not reported this spurious allegation to any police station or any ANC structures locally, provincially and nationally, the same as Dlamini Zuma,” he argued.

‘I Saw Everything’

Sibiya stated in his affidavit that he “saw everything”, a phrase that became another point of contention.

Setheni argued that such an assertion required detailed supporting information.

“If you saw everything, you have to have an opportunity to detail that which is everything you saw in your affidavit,” he submitted.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: US Announces Visa Restrictions For South Africans Over Racial Justice Policies

“He has to go to the details of what constitutes everything. What is it that is ‘everything’ that he saw?”

Mbalula's legal team also questioned how Sibiya became involved in the litigation and ultimately provided an affidavit supporting Dlamini Zuma's case.

The court itself examined aspects of the affidavit's origins and level of detail.

Dlamini Zuma Wants Oral Evidence

Advocate Muzi Sikhakhane SC, representing Dlamini Zuma, argued that concerns about Sibiya's credibility could not properly be resolved without allowing him to give evidence and face cross-examination.

Sikhakhane maintained that Sibiya's statement constituted direct evidence from someone claiming to have attended the Nasrec conference and personally witnessed the alleged distribution of money.

He argued that the dispute had reached a point where oral evidence was necessary.

“This is a classic unavoidable dispute of fact that requires viva voce [oral] evidence. Absolutely. And cross-examination,” Sikhakhane submitted.

He told the court that if it found a genuine dispute of fact, it could dismiss the application, refer a specific issue for oral evidence or send the entire dispute to trial.

Dlamini Zuma's legal team favoured oral evidence.

The judge indicated during proceedings that Sibiya's affidavit could not simply be disregarded, although questions remained about the level of detail contained in it.

Dispute Over Where Money Was Allegedly Distributed

Another issue concerned the precise location where Dlamini Zuma alleges money was distributed.

During her podcast interview, Dlamini Zuma alleged that Mbalula was handing out money at a clinic at the Nasrec conference.

“Mbalula was dishing out money in the clinic. So money has played a role in the ANC. It wasn't like a secret. Money was used, we all know, and we all saw it,” she said during the interview.

She also claimed that people working at the clinic could corroborate her account.

Sibiya's affidavit, however, did not specifically identify the clinic as the location of the alleged payments.

Sikhakhane argued that the distinction was not decisive because the clinic formed part of the broader conference venue.

For Dlamini Zuma's legal team, the central issue was whether money was distributed, rather than precisely where within the Nasrec precinct the alleged distribution occurred.

Mbalula has denied distributing money to buy votes.

Court Hears Arguments Over Continuing Harm

The court also heard competing arguments over whether Dlamini Zuma's statements continued to cause Mbalula harm after the original podcast interview.

Setheni argued that publication operates differently in the social-media era because material can remain online and continue circulating long after an initial interview.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE: Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma Says Telling Truth In ANC Can Put Lives At Risk

He told the court that the allegations had subsequently been replayed by broadcasters and continued to be available for further distribution.

Mbalula's legal team argued that requiring him to pursue every person or platform that subsequently shared the allegations would be impractical.

Setheni further argued that a retraction from Dlamini Zuma herself would carry significant weight because of her political stature.

The judge questioned Mbalula's counsel about precisely what the requested relief was intended to achieve, including whether the objective was to prevent continued publication of the podcast or compel Dlamini Zuma to retract her statements and apologise.

Dlamini Zuma Stands By Allegations

The parties also disagreed over whether there was a reasonable prospect that Dlamini Zuma would repeat the allegations.

Sikhakhane argued that the comments were made during a single interview and that there was no evidence she intended to repeat them.

He also argued that continued circulation of the podcast was not under Dlamini Zuma's control.

Mbalula's legal team countered that Dlamini Zuma continued to stand by the substance of her allegations.

Setheni argued that this meant the dispute could not simply be treated as a once-off interview whose impact had ended.

“That once-off interview has reached lots of people,” he said. “It's for that reason her retraction will go a long way.”

The High Court has now reserved judgment after hearing arguments from both sides.

The court's eventual ruling will determine how Mbalula's urgent defamation application proceeds and whether the dispute can be resolved on the written evidence before it or requires further evidence.